I don’t understand that post at all.
They came here illegally. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the jurisdiction of the US…hence…it doesn’t apply.
It won’t stand up in court, because “jurisdiction” already has a legal meaning. It can’t simply be “redefined”.
If the United States did not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, they would not be able to be prosecuted for crimes.
If illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they’re not subject to our laws, and could not be prosecuted for violating them.
Fine…then let’s remove them and ask them to apply legally and…if they cross again illegally, they can never be a legal citizen…period.
You’re not understanding what I’m saying.
If illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States cannot prosecute them for any crimes.
Not murder, rape, drug dealing, terrorism, or anything else.
I agree.
Nothing “blurry” about it. Either you entered legally or you didn’t.
No, that isn’t what “jurisdiction” means in this context. In this context the difference is in whether or not those present in the US are here of their own accord or acting under the direction of a foreign power such as embassy/consulate personnel.
It absolutely is what jurisdiction means in this context.
A simple change in law would solve much of the problem. “Anyone who enters the US illegally shall forever be barred from any legal status or opportunity for Citizenship in the US.”
The problem is the current view of the 14th Amendment that allows for birthright citizenship for the child born of illegals. A single SCOTUS decision could solve that but the more likely path to change would be through a constitutional amendment which is itself a very high hurdle.
No it isn’t. At the time the 14th was written foreign ambassadors and dignitaries as well as their families were liable under both civil and criminal laws in the US.
“Diplomatic Immunity” came along much later.
The concept of “diplomatic immunity” has existed for 5,000 years, and has been honored in the United States since day 1.
It wasn’t created out of thin air by the Vienna Convention, just codified.
Diplomatic immunity as it exists today is a product of the Geneva Conventions.
http://congressionalresearch.com/RS21672/document.php
It extended little further than treating embassy/mission soil as sovereign territory of the guest nation and to secure communications prior.
“Persons” not “people”. "Persons has a very distinct meaning in our legal system.
There is no legal distinction between “people” and “persons”.
Really? Where are “People” mentioned in the law or our founding documents outside of the use of the phrase “The People”?
Examples please.
They are synonyms.
The term “persons” is used in law for consistency. But there is no legal distinction between the terms.
No they aren’t. “Personhood” is a very specific concept of constitutional law and application of constitutional/legal rights.
“Person” is legally defined as someone who was born alive.
“People” is defined as the plural of “person”.
